[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Developer Status

On 22/10/08 at 23:33 +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Developer Status
> ================

Like others, I'm uncomfortable with the way this is being announced.

Also, I really want to thank you for starting this discussion now.
Having been personally involved in trying to delay the release, I
appreciate the help.

> If you are an existing Debian Developer or Debian Maintainer, don't be
> afraid, we are not going to take anything away from you.

So we, power-hungry DDs and DMs, are fine. Thank you for reassuring us.

> and keyring managers
> would like to remain the authoritative source for "who is in Debian".

Indeed, that's a problem. What about changing the DM process so that
keyring managers are responsible for this keyring as well?

> Debian is about developing a free operating system, but there's more
> in an operating system than just software and packages.  If we want
> translators, documentation writers, artists, free software advocates,
> et al. to get endorsed by the project and feel proud for it, we need
> some way to acknowledge that.  This is where our proposal comes in.

Could you point to some non-programmers contributors that would be
interested into that process? Have you talked to them about it?

> Debian Contributor
> ------------------
> Debian Maintainer
> -----------------
> Debian Member
> -------------
> Debian Developer
> ----------------

I really liked the fact that it was possible to explain Debian's
different developers status in 30 seconds. Couldn't we find a way to
adapt the current architecture to fit in the additional statuses?

> A DM has to pass the same checks a DC has and very few questions from the
> T&S part[DCDMQ].
> A (very) small T&S basically, the most important T&S questions for them.

So you are putting additional load on people who help with the NM
process, while those people are already overloaded.

> They are allowed to upload their own (source) package. The allowed list
> of (source) packages to upload can be edited by any member of the NM
> committee[NMC], who will do a package check before they add new packages
> to the DM's list.

There's a problem with DM currently: it doesn't work well with massively
comaintained packages. For example, if you have:
- a team with DMs DMa and DMb
- DMa became DM to maintain Pa
- DMb became DM to maintain Pb
- DMa wants to help with the maintainance of Pb, but should not be given
  upload rights for Pb
- DMb wants to help with the maintainance of Pa, but should not be given
  upload rights for Pa
Then you have a problem.

If you are maintaining a centralized list for DM upload rights, please
implement it as a list of (DM, Package), not just as a list of
(Package). Or even better, a list of (DM, Package, DD who endorsed this
DM for this Package).
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr             GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: